[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [business-transaction] Changes between 0.6 and 0.9 drafts
I gather that while I was looking at giraffe, people asked for some background to the changes between 0.6 and 0.9. Following is a summary of the main changes. 0.6 (circulated at end of August) was some way behind agreements that had been reached at that point, and there were other important changes agreed in meetings between then and the completion of 0.9. I've included links to the mail archives where possible. Identifying letters are just for reference. I may have missed some changes - let me know if you find something that is different but apparently not covered. A) The explanatory and scenario text in the “Overview” was removed and replaced with just sufficient context and model to make the rest of the document unambiguous. The decision of the 11 Oct meeting was that there should be a short prefatory section and a separate primer/tutorial document and the spec itself should not attempt to be this. (see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/business-transaction/200110/msg00081.ht ml , towards the end). Also removed non-normative appendices (which should go somewhere in BT TC output though) B) Addition of cohesion control – raised as a possibility in San Jose discussions, and proposed in a document Alastair wrote and shared with the BEA folks in early August; brought into general discussion at the 9 August phone call and circulated (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/business-transaction/200108/msg00001.h tml ); agreed for inclusion at 16 August call ( http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/business-transaction/200108/msg00011.ht ml ). The text was subject to much email discussion during August, both before (see thread starting from the document link) and after that agreement ( see thread from http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/business-transaction/200108/msg00015.ht ml ). (several of the terms involved have been changed since the August document – see next item) C) The addition of the cohesion control messages made obvious what had been hidden by the evolution of the spec – there are two distinct relationships : client to coordinator/composer and superior to inferior. As part of the drive to clarify and simplify, after the 4 September call, these two were distinguished. This involved a change in use of the word “Terminator” – a terminator is now always an application-side, volatile element, which communicates with the top-of-the-tree persistent node, now called the “Decider” (which was brought in to avoid saying “coordinator or composer” all over the place) [these are nearly the same as the former Volatile Terminator and Persistent Terminator, but they are now characterised by their relationship to other actors, rather than (partly) by their dynamic behaviour in a particular case]. D) The abstract message set had only covered the Superior:Inferior relationship messages (unchanged since about May). The abstract message definitions s for the Terminator:Decider relationship were added, and those for the Superior:Inferior relationship aligned. (Some of the messages for terminator:decider were specified in the 10 August document as variations on the superior:inferior messages - this shows up as adding a load of parameters to the messages, which aren't used between superior and inferior). E) The August document and discussion (see B) also covered the CONTEXT_REPLY message. This was added. F) The role definitions were modified to reflect the distinction between the two relationships and to align with terminology changes. The communicator role was removed – the addition of the CONTEXT_REPLY message allowed a better way of specifying the necessary behaviour. G) Added text on qualifiers, both in general and particular – decided at Mt Laurel but not reflected in spec 0.6. H) Integrated the xml message and soap binding sections from Alex Ceponkus, applying decisions of meeting on 27 Sept (see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/business-transaction/200109/msg00023.ht ml } and aligning with other changes (including new abstract messages for transaction control relationship) I) Revised binding text, including distinction of general “Proforma” to cover all bindings (also agreed at the 27 Sept meeting) J) Populated the conformance section with real text. K) General editorial tidy-ups Peter ------------------------------------------ Peter Furniss Technical Director, Choreology Ltd email: peter.furniss@choreology.com phone: +44 20 7670 1679 direct: +44 20 7670 1783 mobile: 07951 536168 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC